The English Wikipedia currently averages about 10,000 new accounts *every day*. What good is having a clear-out every two years where you purge 400 of them?
The Wikimedia Foundation has gone on another shill-kill, announcing that it's flicked 381 “paid advocacy” accounts and pulled 210 articles created by the offending accounts. The latest action is a continuation of a long programme attempting to rid Wikipedia of poo-polishing posts. Blogging about the move, Ed Erhart and Juliet …
This article in The Independent newspaper:
This mentions that the 'operation' was named "Orangemoody" after the name of the first account to be discovered. Then there is the Wikipedia entry for this:
However, the Wikipedia article does not mention the few instances of 'blackmail' that are reported in The Independent though it does use the word "protect" in quotes.
"Absolutely amazing that some people will sink that low."
Oh come now. There have been firms of solicitors for years that advertise "reputation management", i.e. threatening to sue people who reveal anything about their clients that they don't like. It is a big and highly profitable business.
Wonderfully, the best known of them is actually named Schillings.
Seems that making money from telling porkies needs a bit of a shake down too.
Perhaps a law can be crafted by our Westminster sock puppets to dissuade the telling of fibs for monetary or other gain...ha!
Not while lies, damned lies and statistics are money in the bank for our capitalist overlords.
So, lying to the courts, DWP, the police, customs and Inland Revenue will get you a bad mark, but leading the rest of us proles down the path is OK then? Our money and livelihoods are totally inconsequential and fair game for anyone with a lack of scruples and a lawyers like perversion of fact.
I like the idea that some countries have, denunciation. You can denounce your neighbour to the local authorities for any reason you care for, not that it would result in anything more fearsome than a quiet word from the local plod, but hey, that's a vast improvement on zero intolerance for the plight of humanity.
"I like the idea that some countries have, denunciation."
Athenian democracy had ostracism. People wrote the name of someone they didn't like on a bit of broken pottery (an ostrakon) and put it in a jar, and anybody with enough votes got exiled.
Which if you stop to think about it is a really bad idea given how easy it is to manipulate people. It actually makes it easier for the authorities to get rid of people they don't like.
>attempting to rid Wikipedia of poo-polishing posts.
The most obvious major article I saw in the past was the article about Somalia (haven't checked lately). It made it seem like the "country" was soon on the path for EU membership or something instead of the textbook example of a failed state that it really is (though I guess Greece did blur that line).
Edit: Yep still horseshit. Check out this line. "According to the CIA and the Central Bank of Somalia, despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, "
Yeah where else can you hire real life pirates and hitmen for bags of grain.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019